Psychometric Properties of the Pain Numeric Rating Scale When Applied to Multiple Body Regions among Professional Musicians

Mikhail Saltychev, Heidi Vastamäki, Ryan Mattie, Zachary McCormick, Martti Vastamäki, Katri Laimi, Mikhail Saltychev, Heidi Vastamäki, Ryan Mattie, Zachary McCormick, Martti Vastamäki, Katri Laimi

Abstract

Background: Despite the broad popularity of a numeric rating scale (NRS) its psychometric properties are not well known. The objective was to determine if there is any difference in the discrimination ability of the NRS when used for measuring pain severity separately in different body regions.

Methods: Cross-sectional survey study of 630 professional musicians. Item Response Theory (IRT) was used to define the psychometric properties of the NRS.

Results: The discrimination ability of the pain NRS was dependent on the body area to which it was applied. The discrimination was low 0.5 (95% CI 0.4. to 0.7) for the hand region and perfect for the shoulder and upper part of the neck- 3.2 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.2) and 10.5 (95% CI 10.0 to 10.9), respectively. Both shoulder and neck NRSs showed a great shift towards higher levels of pain severity meaning that the ability of the NRS to discriminate low levels of pain is poor. NRS scores obtained from all other regions did not demonstrate any discrimination ability.

Conclusions: The pain NRS might have different psychometric properties depending on the body area to which it is applied. Overall, the modest discrimination ability of the pain NRS implies that it should be used in screening questionnaires with some reservations.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Test characteristic curves of pain…
Fig 1. Test characteristic curves of pain numeric rating scales for different body areas.
Y-axis–Expected score of numeric rating scale; X-axis–Level of pain perceived by the respondents. (a) Back, (b) Hand, (c) Neck-A, (d) Face, (e) Neck-B, (f) Jaw, (g) Shoulder, (h) Overall pain in back, neck, shoulder, hand, face, and jaw.
Fig 2
Fig 2
Test information curve of numeric rating scales when applied to pain in neck-1 (left image), neck-2 (middle image), and shoulder (right image). Y-axis–Amount of information (inverse standard error) obtainable from a test; X-axis–Level of pain perceived by the respondents.

References

    1. Phillips PP, Phillips JJ, Aaron B. Survey Basics. Alexandria, VA, USA: ASTD Press; 2013.
    1. Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8(12):1153–7. .
    1. Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Reneman MF, Posthumus JB, Stewart RE. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008;31(2):165–9. 10.1097/MRR.0b013e3282fc0f93 .
    1. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63 Suppl 11:S240–52. 10.1002/acr.20543 .
    1. Kersten P, White PJ, Tennant A. Is the pain visual analogue scale linear and responsive to change? An exploration using Rasch analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99485 10.1371/journal.pone.0099485
    1. Thomee R, Grimby G, Wright BD, Linacre JM. Rasch analysis of Visual Analog Scale measurements before and after treatment of Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome in women. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1995;27(3):145–51. .
    1. Becker J, Schwartz C, Saris-Baglama RN, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB. Using Item Response Theory (IRT) for Developing and Evaluating the Pain Impact Questionnaire (PIQ-6™). Pain Medicine. 2007;8:S129–S44. 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00377.x
    1. Edelen MO, Saliba D. Correspondence of verbal descriptor and numeric rating scales for pain intensity: an item response theory calibration. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2010;65(7):778–85. 10.1093/gerona/glp215 .
    1. K S, Schroeder J, Cook A, Roberts D, Clark B, Parker B. Psychometric Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis of the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS): Scale reduction and relationships with personality (860) Journal of Pain. 2007;8(4, Supplement):S66 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.02.268.
    1. Baker FB. The Basics of Item Response Theory. USA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation; 2001.
    1. Yu CH. A Simple Guide to the Item Response Theory (IRT) and Rasch Modeling 2013. Available from: .
    1. Milojevic KG, Cantineau JP, Ruiz R, Coudert B, Bataille S, Boutot F, et al. Can severe acute pain escape visual analog scale screening in the ED? Am J Emerg Med. 2004;22(3):238–41. .
    1. Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, Rosseland LA, Romundstad L, Hals EK, et al. Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101(1):17–24. 10.1093/bja/aen103 .
    1. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27(1):117–26. .
    1. Kremer E, Atkinson JH, Ignelzi RJ. Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain. 1981;10(2):241–8. .

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit